Sexy flat and thin bezels may be wooing everyone here tired of their Thinkpads but my preferred screen size is 15.4" WUXGA.

I would argue that out of the "conventional" resolutions WUXGA is likely the most productive one by default for a person with average eyesight, be it on 15.4" or even 17.0" LCD. It's a shame that we never got to see an IPS 15.4" WUXGA anywhere...

...Knowledge is a deadly friend when no one sets the rules...(King Crimson)

Sexy flat and thin bezels may be wooing everyone here tired of their Thinkpads but my preferred screen size is 15.4" WUXGA.

I would argue that out of the "conventional" resolutions WUXGA is likely the most productive one by default for a person with average eyesight, be it on 15.4" or even 17.0" LCD. It's a shame that we never got to see an IPS 15.4" WUXGA anywhere...

What does it matter that it is only TN? Yea, the viewing angles are a bit bleak but the junk that they put on the P50 was IPS and it sucked. The WUXGA TN panels(ones from Sharp) rocked the socks off the P50's IPS panel! Same with the W700. A good TN panel can still have really nice viewing angles, like the one on my X220.

Thinkpad4by3's Law of the Universe.

The efficiency of two screens equally sized with equal numbers if pixels are equal. The time spent by a 4:3 user complaining about 16:9 is proportional to the inefficiency working with a 16:9 display, therefore the amount of useful work extracted is equal.

To me it does. My eyes get tired a lot faster when using a TN panel than an IPS one, presuming that both are CCFL-lit.

Yea, the viewing angles are a bit bleak but the junk that they put on the P50 was IPS and it sucked. The WUXGA TN panels(ones from Sharp) rocked the socks off the P50's IPS panel! Same with the W700. A good TN panel can still have really nice viewing angles, like the one on my X220.

Sharp WUXGA screens are indeed nice, and I've been recommending them here on the forum for quite some time now. Likely one of the best TN panels I've ever come across. No first-hand experience with the P50, so I can't comment on its LCD.

...Knowledge is a deadly friend when no one sets the rules...(King Crimson)

Yes, it is cheap chinese underpowered laptop for 300 Euro. But the display parameters are still impressive. As one comments says: Wow, 300 euro notebook has better display than almost any T-series Lenovo.

The efficiency of two screens equally sized with equal numbers if pixels are equal. The time spent by a 4:3 user complaining about 16:9 is proportional to the inefficiency working with a 16:9 display, therefore the amount of useful work extracted is equal.

It is encouraging to see people advertising the ratio of the screen area to the laptop area (91% for the new Matebook vs 69% for the Thinkpad T25). This is a number that really matters, and may encourage taller screens.

It is encouraging to see people advertising the ratio of the screen area to the laptop area (91% for the new Matebook vs 69% for the Thinkpad T25). This is a number that really matters, and may encourage taller screens.

Combined with the trend of ever increasing trackpad sizes, that might be a good thing.

Thinkpad4by3's Law of the Universe.

The efficiency of two screens equally sized with equal numbers if pixels are equal. The time spent by a 4:3 user complaining about 16:9 is proportional to the inefficiency working with a 16:9 display, therefore the amount of useful work extracted is equal.

That would be great. The X6x(s) reach a still remarkable 80% in this regard, btw.

True. I'm amazed at the X61's compact lid, especially next to the X220.

Eh, not so much for me. It was simple, if you put the board in the back imstead of the front, LCDs can have a very small border.

Now compare the thickness of the X220 to X61s display assembly. I can put the same computer in a cube or in a rectangle but it still has the same parts.

Now the Matebook impresses me on how much they can shrink the parts needed to drive the display.

Check out the Omnibook 300. That display was practically edgeless, but needed the side space to accomodate the keyboard. That was basically the same as the X61s and in 1992.

Thinkpad4by3's Law of the Universe.

The efficiency of two screens equally sized with equal numbers if pixels are equal. The time spent by a 4:3 user complaining about 16:9 is proportional to the inefficiency working with a 16:9 display, therefore the amount of useful work extracted is equal.

It is encouraging to see people advertising the ratio of the screen area to the laptop area (91% for the new Matebook vs 69% for the Thinkpad T25). This is a number that really matters, and may encourage taller screens.

Meh. It ususally means structural rigidity is sacrificed to increase said percentage of display to front area. No thanks.

As for the size in general; If I buy a new laptop... my backpack doesn't magically shrink. It now perfectly fine accommodates a W520 with 9 cell battery. Anything substantially smaller will just irritatingly swim around, or I'll have to add additional foam.

Having said all that; If you take the W520 size, put the hinges further to the rear to integrate the 9 cell battery, one can easily fit a 3:2 screen. Make that 3840*2560 or something, update the hardware to current tech and all is good. But alas... Lenovo insists on their stupid keyboard.

I feel like we are going back in time. In the mid-2000s, almost every laptop had a good designed keyboard and a real display if it cost more than $350. Now we have to deal with crappy displays that are too wide with too much bezel, weak hinges and badly designed keyboards. This were problem we had in 1989. I guess my T480 prediction came true!

Let me do a little comparison against this laptop: A NEC Ultralite from 1989.

The efficiency of two screens equally sized with equal numbers if pixels are equal. The time spent by a 4:3 user complaining about 16:9 is proportional to the inefficiency working with a 16:9 display, therefore the amount of useful work extracted is equal.

It is encouraging to see people advertising the ratio of the screen area to the laptop area (91% for the new Matebook vs 69% for the Thinkpad T25). This is a number that really matters, and may encourage taller screens.

It's slightly less encouraging though to see them getting rid of: Home/End, PgUp,PgDn, ScrLk, Pause/Break and... lemme see... ah the "menu" key. That way or the other, making touchpads more ginormous and eating up the keyboard. Here's hoping Lenovo will not follow this particular path.

It is encouraging to see people advertising the ratio of the screen area to the laptop area (91% for the new Matebook vs 69% for the Thinkpad T25). This is a number that really matters, and may encourage taller screens.

It's slightly less encouraging though to see them getting rid of: Home/End, PgUp,PgDn, ScrLk, Pause/Break and... lemme see... ah the "menu" key. That way or the other, making touchpads more ginormous and eating up the keyboard. Here's hoping Lenovo will not follow this particular path.

I always liked the X200s touchpad! Keyboard should get first priority!

Thinkpad4by3's Law of the Universe.

The efficiency of two screens equally sized with equal numbers if pixels are equal. The time spent by a 4:3 user complaining about 16:9 is proportional to the inefficiency working with a 16:9 display, therefore the amount of useful work extracted is equal.

It is encouraging to see people advertising the ratio of the screen area to the laptop area (91% for the new Matebook vs 69% for the Thinkpad T25). This is a number that really matters, and may encourage taller screens.

It's slightly less encouraging though to see them getting rid of: Home/End, PgUp,PgDn, ScrLk, Pause/Break and... lemme see... ah the "menu" key. That way or the other, making touchpads more ginormous and eating up the keyboard. Here's hoping Lenovo will not follow this particular path.

The efficiency of two screens equally sized with equal numbers if pixels are equal. The time spent by a 4:3 user complaining about 16:9 is proportional to the inefficiency working with a 16:9 display, therefore the amount of useful work extracted is equal.

As much as I have been trying to solider on with a T60p (4:3) and T61p (16:10), heels dug in, to the ergos and the screens, I'm am eagerly watching 3:2 machines pop up as the old machines chug as a main driver for daily tasks (quite fine as a secondary laptop though).

Eager to jump on a second hand Surface Pro 3, and like the look of the Surface Book 13.5, tempted by Chuwi hi12 / hi13, and wondering how many others have considered these as replacements.

Never, ever have really been tempted by a Macbook, and of course disgusted by its reliability and software, but am equally disgusted by 16:9 panels, so the prospect of a 16:10 panel (retina for that matter) paired with an i7 looks tempting - getting impatient sitting around waiting for a non-16:9 of decent size.

Breakout the CAD software, the 3D printer, and lots of spare TP keyboards to play with!

Thinkpad4by3's Law of the Universe.

The efficiency of two screens equally sized with equal numbers if pixels are equal. The time spent by a 4:3 user complaining about 16:9 is proportional to the inefficiency working with a 16:9 display, therefore the amount of useful work extracted is equal.

I saw your other post describing your experience in more detail. I haven't seen the Surface Go yet, but the detachable keyboard of my Surface 3 (which probably has a very similar keyboard as the Surface Go) can be used in an upper position and a lower position. It feels much more solid in the lower position, where the keyboard lies flat on the desk. I hate the upper position.

Detachables with touchscreen are the way to go. Now and then I need a very tall screen, so I detach the keyboard and rotate the screen 90 degrees into portrait orientation. The keyboard is gone, but I can still input most types of information via the touchscreen. No doubt there are many conventional laptops with more comfortable keyboards, but the flexibility of detachables more than makes up for that. And 3:2 is the best aspect ratio for detachables because it's reasonably tall in landscape mode, and not uselessly narrow in portrait mode.